refresh_faf

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which opens the question of whether re-grounding persists state; the description only says it re-reads, re-scores and returns context, and never discloses writes, caching, or side effects. It adds the drift-report behavior, which is useful, but leaves the non-read-only hint unexplained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening clause is front-loaded and precise, but 'drift → refresh → re-grounded' and 'Built for Grok, by request' are filler that consume space without helping an agent decide or invoke correctly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the trigger condition and that a drift delta plus fresh context are returned, but 'return the fresh context' is left vague for a tool whose entire value is that returned context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the purpose of 'baseline' ('report drift vs your last-known score') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: 're-read + re-score the current project DNA' and 're-ground on the live .faf'. This is clearly distinct from refresh_blend/refresh_fafm in intent, though it never names the sibling it most overlaps with (faf_score) to explain the difference in practice.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies usage via 'The explicit re-grounding primitive for long sessions: drift → refresh → re-grounded', which tells the agent it is a session-maintenance call, but gives no explicit when-not or alternatives (e.g., why not just call faf_score again).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.